Page 2 of 5
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 11:40
by markfiend
Hm. To be fair, it's not really Star Wars' fault that Hollywood noticed how succesful it was and made an infinite number of inferior merchandise-driven copies.
And the plot, charcters, whatever you may think of them, are
supposed to be a re-setting of the archetypal fairy-story into a space-opera universe. If that's one-dimensional and simplistic, well, isn't Cinderella?
The point of Star Wars (IMO) is that it was a
visual spectacle, which is (again, IMO) what film is all about. If you want moral ambiguities and subtle characterisation, read a book. If you want to see a three-mile long spaceship coming over your head just after the opening titles, go and see Star Wars.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 11:53
by Quiff Boy
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 12:17
by RicheyJames
markfiend wrote:Hm. To be fair, it's not really Star Wars' fault that Hollywood noticed how succesful it was and made an infinite number of inferior merchandise-driven copies.
but it's the archetype. it's the model. and this endless spinning out of sequels, re-releases and "enhacements" with all the attendant hype just reinforces all that is wrong about hollywood movies.
And the plot, charcters, whatever you may think of them, are
supposed to be a re-setting of the archetypal fairy-story into a space-opera universe. If that's one-dimensional and simplistic, well, isn't Cinderella?
yes, but
cinderella is a children's story and that's entirely my point.
star wars is a essentially a children's film. it has had a direct and palpable effect on he infantilisation and dumbing-down of our culture. a process which has resulted in the
harry potter phenomonen.
The point of Star Wars (IMO) is that it was a visual spectacle, which is (again, IMO) what film is all about. If you want moral ambiguities and subtle characterisation, read a book.
the suggestion that cinema should not aspire to art validates my entire argument. you fail totally to address the fact that mainstream cinema was able to challenge our pre-conceptions and beliefs pre-
star wars in a way that is rarely, if ever, seen since. film is not purely a visual spectacle and it's fatuous to say so. cinema is probably the most powerful art-form in our society and it is sad to see the debasement of that art-form to nothing more than a serious of overblown commercials desgined to do nothing more than generate cash.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 12:18
by Padstar
RicheyJames wrote:Padstar wrote:it saved cinema you know!!!!!!!
what?!? f
ucking killed cinema more like!
the seventies were a golden age in hollywood. films like
taxi driver,
chinatown,
midnight cowboy,
apocalypse now,
network and
the deer hunter were produced by mainstream studios for a mainstream audience. complex, adult films full of moral ambiguities and subtle characterisation.
then came
star wars. two-dimensional characters, one-dimensional plot. a simplistic, child-like vision of good versus evil, a romantic sub-plot that would have been rejected by a fifties b-movie producer as too trite and a villain so villainous that he wouldn't have looked out of place twirling his moustache in a 1920s silent western. admit it, you're imagining carrie fisher tied to the railway tracks already...
but somehow this half-baked melange of old saturday morning serials and californian pseudo-spiritual hippy nonsense became a huge hit and, in the process, changed the film-making landscape. and what were the eightiess equivalents to those great films of the seventies?
gremlins,
the goonies,
ghostbusters,
beverly hills cop and
rambo. well excuse me if i'm not quick to thank george lucas for infantilising mainstream cinema.
i could go on, i've not even mentioned the explosion in merchandise heralded by those oh-so-collectable figures which started us on the path to the hollywood blockbuster as ninety-minute toy advert, but i've long known that this i'm fighting a losing battle. i console myself by recalling the small boy in the crowd shouting out what everyone else knew to be true but forced themselves not to see. for
star wars, and the mythology surrounding it, truly is the emperor's new clothes for the twenty-first century.
LOL....
Im not a physicist im an artist. "Escapism" m8, not everything has to be deep and meaningful. And the fact is Cinema audiences were dropping off towards the end of the 70s. Ide argue that without the "trend" created by films like Star Wars there may not be a place to show modern day "serious" films.
So, keep your staight edges and shiny surfaces, get stuffed!!! ill have the colour and happily be spirited away from "this" place for a couple of hours thankyou very much!!!
God your angry....
Paddy.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 12:48
by Quiff Boy
i liked the goonies
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 12:58
by RicheyJames
Padstar wrote:And the fact is Cinema audiences were dropping off towards the end of the 70s. Ide argue that without the "trend" created by films like Star Wars there may not be a place to show modern day "serious" films.
absolute rubbish. cinema audiences declined steadily from the 1950s right through to a low-point in the early nineties. in fact cinema attendance in 1990 was barely half what it was in 1977 when
star wars was first released. since then there has been a steady increase in numbers but this is entirely due to the growth in the number of screens as multiplexes have replaced traditional cinemas. sorry but there is absolutely no evidence at all to support your theory that
star wars saved cinema.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:01
by Quiff Boy
i liked the goonies
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:28
by Padstar
RicheyJames wrote:Padstar wrote:And the fact is Cinema audiences were dropping off towards the end of the 70s. Ide argue that without the "trend" created by films like Star Wars there may not be a place to show modern day "serious" films.
absolute rubbish. cinema audiences declined steadily from the 1950s right through to a low-point in the early nineties. in fact cinema attendance in 1990 was barely half what it was in 1977 when
star wars was first released. since then there has been a steady increase in numbers but this is entirely due to the growth in the number of screens as multiplexes have replaced traditional cinemas. sorry but there is absolutely no evidence at all to support your theory that
star wars saved cinema.
He he... well, as seen as i watch the wrong films i suppose i also get my info from the wrong places too
I just think that "serious" film fans find it irksome that these films were so successful...... perhaps in as similar way i feel about Westlife from a musical perspective.
May the force be with you Richey ..... though i fear you have always been on the dark side.
Paddy
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:29
by markfiend
RicheyJames wrote:the suggestion that cinema should not aspire to art validates my entire argument.
I didn't make that suggestion though. Cinema
is art, but
visual art. What you seem to be arguing is that cinema should be in essence theatre-on-screen?
I disagree; cinema should
be cinema; a moving 2-dimensional image with sound, rather than a pale emulation of another art-form. I'll agree that the very simplicity of the archetypal characters and story in Star Wars appeal to the emotions on a "childish" level if you will, but that doesn't make it a children's film, or even a childish one. In fact the universality of the archetypes
adds to the value of the film
as a film rather than as a "play-on-the-screen" that you seem to prefer.
Even now, art-house cinema is dialogue-driven, when cinema should be
visually-driven. Star Wars could, and indeed should have been a leader of an
avant-garde to reclaim a
visual artform from the shadow of drama, where it has lingered for far too long.
It is unfortunate, in many ways, that it was so commercially succesful, and that Hollywood did not recognise Lucas' innovation for what it was, for I will wholeheartedly agree with you about the dreck that followed in its wake.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:31
by Padstar
Quiff Boy wrote:i liked the goonies
Me too for the record.... perhaps theres just no hope.....
Seriously though, hokey religons are no match for a good film critic at your side kid!
Paddy
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:41
by wintermute
it's a film. turn on tune in and walk away at the end to get on with the rest of your life
it's not the apogee of art or the end of civilisation
or is there something on the DVD that i missed in the movies all those years ago ?
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:45
by Padstar
wintermute wrote:it's a film. turn on tune in and walk away at the end to get on with the rest of your life
it's not the apogee of art or the end of civilisation
or is there something on the DVD that i missed in the movies all those years ago ?
Now just a flippin minute! Dont start getting all sensible... you will spoil it!
Paddy.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:45
by RicheyJames
markfiend wrote:Cinema is art, but visual art. What you seem to be arguing is that cinema should be in essence theatre-on-screen?
not at all. i'm merely putting forward the belief that plot, dialogue and characterisation are as (not more) important as visuals. your argument appears to be that all this is unnecessary so long as what's on screen looks pretty enough.
Even now, art-house cinema is dialogue-driven, when cinema should be visually-driven. Star Wars could, and indeed should have been a leader of an avant-garde to reclaim a visual artform from the shadow of drama, where it has lingered for far too long.
did you cut n paste that from pseuds' corner? are you seriosuly suggesting that film should give up all pretence to being drama? that we shouldn't use this most powerful of media to examine the human condition, challenge our beliefs and probe our collective pysche? that we should just give in and sit slack-jawed in the dark soothed into a stupor by the entertaining light show?
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:50
by Quiff Boy
i liked the goonies
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 13:51
by Padstar
Quiff Boy wrote:i liked the goonies
I STILL concur.
Paddy
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:07
by markfiend
RicheyJames wrote:i'm merely putting forward the belief that plot, dialogue and characterisation are as (not more) important as visuals. your argument appears to be that all this is unnecessary so long as what's on screen looks pretty enough.
Why not?
RicheyJames wrote:did you cut n paste that from pseuds' corner?
Touché! No, it's all my own words.
RicheyJames wrote:are you seriosuly suggesting that film should give up all pretence to being drama?
Why not? Film is
not drama, film is film. Why should it pretend to be anything else? Just as painting is painting; figurative painting is unnecessary when we have photography, leaving painting free to seek abstraction. Film is not drama, and if we can break away from attempts to make it
be drama, then can cinema not find a place as a valid artform in its own right?
RicheyJames wrote:that we shouldn't use this most powerful of media to examine the human condition, challenge our beliefs and probe our collective pysche?
If that's what you want from a film, then you're welcome to (try to) get such a film made. Is it not more of a challenge to make a film that can examine these things without plot, characterisation, even without dialogue?
RicheyJames wrote:that we should just give in and sit slack-jawed in the dark soothed into a stupor by the entertaining light show?
Why not?
Oh I'll concede that your drama-driven films are as artistically valid as my visual-driven films; the thing is, you are criticising Star Wars for not being something it was never intended to be.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:11
by Quiff Boy
Padstar wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:i liked the goonies
I STILL concur.
Paddy
yay
what i'm trying to say is that films work on many different levels. the whole medium is a very subjective one - we each take something different from a movie.
i liked the goonies. it pressed certain buttons in me, evoked certain memories, had an amusing baddie called "one eyed willie" and quite a cool feel it. it doesnt matter to me thats its a dumb-ass kids film from the 80s. sometimes you want to see dumb-ass kids film from teh 80s.
star wars is the same. i like the idea of it, i like the music, the production values, the spaceships, the snappy dialogue, han solo's wry grin, etc etc etc. its cool.
stop being such a f*cking snob - it doesnt have to be "seventh seal" or "citizen kane" to be a good film you know
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:17
by markfiend
Incidentally,
Citizen Kane was berated in some quarters for being too "flashy" in a visual sense, with its daring (for the time) use of montage, unusual camera angles, and other cinematographic techniques.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:23
by Quiff Boy
markfiend wrote:Incidentally,
Citizen Kane was berated in some quarters for being too "flashy" in a visual sense, with its daring (for the time) use of montage, unusual camera angles, and other cinematographic techniques.
i think its s**t. not a stormtrooper in sight
and seventh seal would have been better if Death had been playing that 3d holographic chess game that r2 and chewie play
"But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket when they lose. Death is known to do that."
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:25
by markfiend
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:49
by RicheyJames
markfiend wrote:Oh I'll concede that your drama-driven films are as artistically valid as my visual-driven films; the thing is, you are criticising Star Wars for not being something it was never intended to be.
i admire your lofty ideals of film being a visual artform in its own right. there are plenty of artists out there working in the medium creating exactly the sort of work you seem to be pushing toward. where you fall down is in trying to argue that
star wars has any artistic merit. it has none. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. despite what you might think i'm not an elitist snob. i'm as happy as anyone to enjoy a
good blockbuster but i'm not prepared to jettison all my critical faculties to do so.
but i don't merely object to
star wars on critical grounds. i'm decrying it for what it stands for. which, above all, is the dumbing-down of society. is it any coincidence that following lucas' black and white portrayal of the battle between good and evil the american people elected ronald reagan, a sometime movie "star" who portrayed the cold war as a battle between good and evil? but
star wars is also directly implicated in the commercialisation of cinema, the growth of capitalism, the spread of globalisation and the homogenisation of culture. things that i believe many round these parts believe to be indicative of all that is wrong with the world. the sad truth is that
star wars is to film what
mcdonalds is to food.
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 14:56
by RicheyJames
Quiff Boy wrote:stop being such a f*cking snob - it doesnt have to be "seventh seal" or "citizen kane" to be a good film you know
citizen kane is dreadfully dull though. it has to be admired for breaking new ground in the way it was made but that's about it. and i've never even seen
seventh seal. see, i told you i wasn't a snob!
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 15:10
by Loki
Quiff Boy wrote:star wars.
Never watched one in my life. On telly, VHS or DVD. And more than happy to stay that way.
RicheyJames wrote:films like taxi driver, chinatown, midnight cowboy, apocalypse now, network and the deer hunter
Been peeking at my VHS collection again?
wintermute wrote:it's a film. turn on tune in and walk away at the end to get on with the rest of your life
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 15:17
by Quiff Boy
JB wrote:RicheyJames wrote:films like taxi driver, chinatown, midnight cowboy, apocalypse now, network and the deer hunter
Been peeking at my VHS collection again?
and mine
Posted: 21 Sep 2004, 15:19
by Loki
Quiff Boy wrote:JB wrote:RicheyJames wrote:films like taxi driver, chinatown, midnight cowboy, apocalypse now, network and the deer hunter
Been peeking at my VHS collection again?
and mine
Yes, but mine's a goonie free zone.
